ASCP Clinical Compendium COMPANION

[EUA]

That's a mouthful. So this is supposed to be an adjunct to the Clinical Compendium, with over 1000 Q&A. Has anyone seen this book in detail yet? Are the questions multiple choice? Henry's question book is such a damn waste of time being all fill in the blank.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

That's interesting - I hadn't even heard about that. Definitely a good idea though, would be a big seller for boards prep because people are always looking for good practice questions. I agree the Henry book is a bit weird - many of the questions are similar topics to the boards though, so it is worth going through some of the areas you have less familiarity with. The other problem with the Henry book is that some of the stuff it tests you on is too esoteric for even the CP boards.

 

[DrBloodmoney]

That's a mouthful. So this is supposed to be an adjunct to the Clinical Compendium, with over 1000 Q&A. Has anyone seen this book in detail yet? Are the questions multiple choice? Henry's question book is such a damn waste of time being all fill in the blank.

If you're patient SDN'er GeoLeoX may visit this thread to tell you all aboot it since he wrote it.

It's a nice book. I wish that it would have been around last year while I was poring over the compendium trying to memorize the whole thing.

 

[GeoLeoX]

I have been away for a while, but I am around if anyone has any questions about the book. I wrote it because I wanted a book like it to study for boards. The entire book is multiple choice (though there may be one or two weirder formats) A-E similar to the boards and RISE. There are 1138 questions representing each chapter of the book.

I am sorry for the price, I pushed for a soft cover but the publisher wanted the book to fit into the Clinical Compendium format.

Hope that helps,
Geo

 

[SLUsagar]

I have been away for a while, but I am around if anyone has any questions about the book. I wrote it because I wanted a book like it to study for boards. The entire book is multiple choice (though there may be one or two weirder formats) A-E similar to the boards and RISE. There are 1138 questions representing each chapter of the book.

I am sorry for the price, I pushed for a soft cover but the publisher wanted the book to fit into the Clinical Compendium format.

Hope that helps,
Geo

Dr Leonard,
thanks for your post. ?: so I still have the older version of mais and was planning on just using that for board studying, but am very interested in a CP question book like this. Are there solid explanations for answers or simply ref's to where to find answer in the (newer) Mais version?

thanks

 

[GeoLeoX]

I have been getting numerous emails and from the gist of some of the posts here it seems like the description from ASCP isn't quite clear.

Here are the first 5 questions (and their answers) from the first chapter:

1. Which statement best describes Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics?
A. Substrate concentration is inversely related to reaction rate at concentrations below saturation.
B. Rate of enzyme activity varies linearly with substrate concentration when enzyme is fully saturated.
C. Saturation of enzyme by substrate leads to logarithmic increases in reaction rate.
D. Rate of enzyme activity varies logarithmically with substrate concentration when enzyme is fully saturated.
E. Rate of enzyme activity is independent of substrate concentration when enzyme is fully saturated.

2. What differential property of NADH allows it to be measured in a coupled enzyme assay?
A. NADH does not precipitate from the reaction, NAD does.
B. NADH differentially precipitates out of the reaction, NAD does not.
C. NADH does not absorb light at 340nm while NAD does.
D. NADH absorbs light at 340nm while NAD does not.
E. None of the above.

3. The production of N-nitrophenol and phosphate from p-nitrophenyl phosphate can be catalyzed by two different enzymes at two different pHs. Match the enzyme and pH.
A. Alkaline phosphatase, pH 10; acid phosphatase, pH 5.
B. Alkaline phosphatase, pH 5; acid phosphatase, pH 10.
C. Nitrophenyl phosphatase, pH 5; nitrophenyl kinase, pH 10.
D. Nitrophenyl phosphatase, pH 10; nitrophenyl kinase, pH 5.
E. None of the above.

4. While enzyme concentration and enzyme activity are commonly used interchangeably, what's the most common discordance between them?
A. Immunoassay measurement of enzyme concentration is always equal to enzyme activity.
B. Immunoassay measurement of enzyme concentration is never equal to enzyme activity.
C. Enzyme activity is usually measured in a different manner and therefore cannot be coordinated.
D. Immunoassay underestimates activity
E. Activity underestimates immunoassay.

5. What is the BEST definition of a macroenzyme and what is the effect?
A. An enzyme multimer; creating a new active site.
B. A zymogenic form of an enzyme; inhibiting enzyme activity.
C. An enzyme bound to an antibody; inhibiting enzyme and preventing it from being cleared.
D. An enzyme larger than 300kDa; can only function in a specific subcellular location.
E. A multistep enzyme; converts reagents to products in a successive, stepwise fashion.


Answers:
1. B. Rate of enzyme activity varies linearly with substrate concentration when enzyme is fully saturated. The enzyme is working at its maximum rate (Vmax), it cannot go any faster. Therefore, with all other things equal the only thing that alters reaction rate is the enzyme concentration. Because of this in the presence of substrate excess, enzyme concentration can be determined. (Methods, p.2)

2. D. NADH absorbs light at 340nm, NAD does not. The formation or disappearance of NADH can be measured by light absorption at 340nm. Reaction products can be measured by coupling the reaction to the utilization of NAD or NADH or indirectly by coupling a subsequent "measuring" reaction to NAD or NADH. The concentration of reaction products are calculated from the NAD/NADH ratio. (Methods, p.2)

3. A. alkaline phosphatase, pH10; acid phosphatase, pH5. At pH10 (alkaline pH) alkaline phosphatase can be assayed, at pH5 (acidic pH) acid phosphatase. While nitrophenyl phosphatase is a real enzyme, nitrophenyl kinase doesn't exist (as far as I know). (Methods, p.2)

4. E. immunoassay overestimating activity. There are multiple potential causes for enzyme activity to be lower than enzyme concentration - inhibitors, macroenzymes, lack of cofactors, proteolytically-inactive enzymes, among others. (Methods, p.2)

5. C. an enzyme bound to an antibody, inhibiting the enzyme and preventing it from being cleared. Macroenzymes are enzymes bound to antibodies, which inhibit enzyme function and block enzyme clearance. The other choices are somewhat plausible, but none of them describe a macroenzyme (Methods, p.2)

I hope this helps,
Geo

 

[112641]

The book is great as far as I can tell.. of course I'm not taking the boards until May but I've shown it to a couple of people who have and they endorsed it (as ONE of the things to study). The explanations are great.. mostly because they are short.. almost every word is relevant and there are clues in some of the answers about HOW to remember why the answer is correct. If you have the compendium open next to this book and don't understand the explanation you can very easily go over to it and read about it.

The only thing I don't like about it and that I hope is fixed in time to be helpful to me before May/June is that it can't be registered on the ASCP press site yet. It gives an invalid serial number error and as far as I can tell there isn't any way to ask about it or fix it.. yet. Still even with the promised tips and updates that the backcover (full text searching - meaning I think that I wouldn't have to lug the book around when I go out of town) It still seems to be worth every dollar of the price.

 

[EUA]

OK. That is all very helpful information, indeed. I'm curious, though, as to how the questions themselves were modeled. Are they meant to be similar to board questions, both in format and in level of detail? Those first five questions the author posted (thank you for your input, by the way!) seem to be a bit on the esoteric side, no?

 

[GeoLeoX]

I appreciate everyone's input, it helps me to stay on top of things. First of all I apologize for the serial number/registration thing. I have put in an email to my contact at ASCP Press to get to the bottom of it. I will follow up when I hear back. If it's any consolation I still have not seen a print copy of the book and I don't know when I will (contractually, I am supposed to get at least one copy).

As far as the "esotericity" (if that is a word) of the questions I think there is a little selection bias. By just taking the first 5 (in order) I sampled a very narrow portion (of the 1137). My goal with writing questions was to be comprehensive as possible regarding the text. As the Quick Compendium is very dense I thought that the questions should be as well. I will admit that the depth is more than the boards (took and passed, thanks!) and as a result some of it may seem a little less routine. I used a certain Anatomic Pathology review book (that I absolutely loved and endorse) whose questions were clearly more difficult than those on the boards, but I thought prepared me well for the real test, as a model.

Thanks again to everyone for the feedback. I feel adamantly that no one should fail the CP boards. I don't want to seem like I am trying to hawk a product, so if anyone has any particular questions or is looking for a little help with organizing to take the boards feel free to contact me via PM.

Geo

 

[yaah]

The CP board exam is esoteric!

 

[EUA]

As far as the "esotericity" (if that is a word) of the questions I think there is a little selection bias. By just taking the first 5 (in order) I sampled a very narrow portion (of the 1137). My goal with writing questions was to be comprehensive as possible regarding the text. As the Quick Compendium is very dense I thought that the questions should be as well. I will admit that the depth is more than the boards (took and passed, thanks!) and as a result some of it may seem a little less routine. I used a certain Anatomic Pathology review book (that I absolutely loved and endorse) whose questions were clearly more difficult than those on the boards, but I thought prepared me well for the real test, as a model.

Thanks for your response. This is exactly the answer I was looking for, in that the questions are meant to cover the material in the Compendium, and don't necessarily represent the level of esoterica encountered on boards; but yet the questions are designed to mold a thought process similar to that expected by the boards.

May I ask, what AP Q&A book did you find helpful? I like Sternberg, but it seems somewhat brief, and possibly on the superficial side.

 

[yaah]

The Leftkowich book is pretty good for AP, and in actuality so is the cytopathology review (I think by Holladay)

here are the amazon.com links to those two

http://www.amazon.com/Cytopathology...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233176984&sr=8-1


http://www.amazon.com/Anatomic-Path...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233177057&sr=1-1

 

[GeoLeoX]

First of all I apologize for the serial number/registration thing. I have put in an email to my contact at ASCP Press to get to the bottom of it. I will follow up when I hear back.

The book is currently on backorder from both ASCP and Amazon, unfortunately due to a delay in shipment from the warehouse. It should be in soon I am told, but I have no date. Also, the book has not yet been put on the ASCP "Bookshelf" (http://press.ascp.org) where you can register your book and access the electronic version of it. There was some snafu with getting the answers to match up with the questions. I don't know. It should also be soon remedied so that you can register.

Hope that helps,
Geo

 

[Nilf]

The Leftkowich book is pretty good for AP, and in actuality so is the cytopathology review (I think by Holladay)

here are the amazon.com links to those two

http://www.amazon.com/Cytopathology...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233176984&sr=8-1


http://www.amazon.com/Anatomic-Path...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233177057&sr=1-1

ARE THEY REALLY? Your words are music to my ears.

 

[GeoLeoX]

The Leftkowich book is pretty good for AP, and in actuality so is the cytopathology review (I think by Holladay)

here are the amazon.com links to those two

http://www.amazon.com/Cytopathology...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233176984&sr=8-1


http://www.amazon.com/Anatomic-Path...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233177057&sr=1-1

Those two were the basis of my AP board review.

 

[EAB]

Wanted to add my 2 cents. I got the book a couple of weeks ago, have done a couple of chapters, and so far it's great. I have the Henry review book and I've totally given up using it due to the long-winded anwer style. I'm planning on the Quick Compendium and the question book being the foundation of my board study.

 

[GeoLeoX]

Not to sound self-serving but if any of you all found the book acceptable (or not) I would appreciate it if you left feedback on Amazon (if applicable).

There is only one review and I think that the reviewer was reviewing the Clinical Compendium rather than the Companion. The book has a stupid confusing title, I have learned my lesson (but not before writing a molecular companion).

Thanks,
Geo

 

[Path Chick]

I saw that on Amazon too, and I assumed they were reviewing the 1st ed of the Compendium.

I plan on ordering the Companion, I have heard nothing but good things!

 

[112641]

They have the online text for the clinical companion up now. It's done well and I can see why it took so long to get working. Instead of having the text consecutive with questions and then answers in seperate sections like in the book, you click on an "ans" button and the text with the answer and explanation appears. I don't have to mark the answer section and keep flipping back.. and I don't have to worry about hiding the answer for the next questions from my peripheral vision. I haven't taken the boards yet so I can't say how solid/applicable they are, but the author did recently pass the boards from what I understand. Plus it's easy to go through a section in about an hour on line and that doesn't seem like much time for what it is.

 

[SLUsagar]

They have the online text for the clinical companion up now. It's done well and I can see why it took so long to get working. Instead of having the text consecutive with questions and then answers in seperate sections like in the book, you click on an "ans" button and the text with the answer and explanation appears. I don't have to mark the answer section and keep flipping back.. and I don't have to worry about hiding the answer for the next questions from my peripheral vision. I haven't taken the boards yet so I can't say how solid/applicable they are, but the author did recently pass the boards from what I understand. Plus it's easy to go through a section in about an hour on line and that doesn't seem like much time for what it is.

do you have to pay separately for this? i've already purchase the book but would love the online access for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[112641]

do you have to pay separately for this? i've already purchase the book but would love the online access for the reasons you mentioned.

No you shouldn't have to.. there should be a serial number on the back inside cover of your book that you enter at the website. You have to register for a username at press.ascp.org if you haven't already, but that's also free.

 

[Nilf]

Not to sound self-serving but if any of you all found the book acceptable (or not) I would appreciate it if you left feedback on Amazon (if applicable).

There is only one review and I think that the reviewer was reviewing the Clinical Compendium rather than the Companion. The book has a stupid confusing title, I have learned my lesson (but not before writing a molecular companion).

Thanks,
Geo

The book is a must-have for anyone taking the CP boards... Having said that, mistakes are numerous, frustrating, and angst-provoking... Still, money well spent IMO.

 

[GeoLeoX]

The book is a must-have for anyone taking the CP boards... Having said that, mistakes are numerous, frustrating, and angst-provoking... Still, money well spent IMO.

Gack! This is exactly what happened with the reviewer on Amazon I mentioned above. Are you talking about the Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology or The Compendium Companion? They are two separate books. And though I do admit there are a few mistakes in the Companion (The answer to the first question for example, which should read "Rate of enzyme activity varies linearly with substrate concentration UNTIL enzyme is fully saturated.", instead of the way that I misworded it.) for the most part I tried to avoid the errors in the Quick Compendium.

 

[Nilf]

Gack! This is exactly what happened with the reviewer on Amazon I mentioned above. Are you talking about the Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology or The Compendium Companion? They are two separate books. And though I do admit there are a few mistakes in the Companion (The answer to the first question for example, which should read "Rate of enzyme activity varies linearly with substrate concentration UNTIL enzyme is fully saturated.", instead of the way that I misworded it.) for the most part I tried to avoid the errors in the Quick Compendium.

I have both; Compendium of Clinical Pathology has more, and they are really insidious, but the Companion also has its share. Like you said, the very first question has a mistake, which cost me 1/2 hour of angst and questioning my own sanity. It's still a great book though.

 

[GeoLeoX]

I have both; Compendium of Clinical Pathology has more, and they are really insidious, but the Companion also has its share. Like you said, the very first question has a mistake, which cost me 1/2 hour of angst and questioning my own sanity. It's still a great book though.

If you find any errors I would really appreciate it if you either email them, PM, or better yet post in this forum so that others may benefit. I certainly would like to know where the errors are.

Thanks!

 

[112641]

If you find any errors I would really appreciate it if you either email them, PM, or better yet post in this forum so that others may benefit. I certainly would like to know where the errors are.

Thanks!

I'll start keeping track while I study. If I was into marking up my books I'd probably be able to go back and find a list for you but I hate putting marks in books for any reason. But the errors aren't that hard to deal with. For all the ones I can remember the explanation didn't agree with the question (like the first question typed above..if you read the explanation it's clear there's a typo in the question.. also I remember a question about clinically sig. antibodies that should have said 'except' instead of which one is true). So when I come across them it just means I find out why they don't make sense = more studying.

 

[Nilf]

If you find any errors I would really appreciate it if you either email them, PM, or better yet post in this forum so that others may benefit. I certainly would like to know where the errors are.

Thanks!

If you find any errors I would really appreciate it if you either email them, PM, or better yet post in this forum so that others may benefit. I certainly would like to know where the errors are.

Thanks!

OK. Errors in Chapter 1... here we go:

Question 1, as explained above.

Question 29. There are two Cs in the answer choices.

Question 43. Choices A and D are identical; it's not really a mistake because both serous cystadenomas and solid-cystic tumors have identical amylase/CEA/CA19-9 pattern, but it's unusual to have two identical answer choices.

Question 78. 'hyperparthyroidism'.

Question 98 explanation: 'rhabomyolysis'.

Question 143. The explanation states: 'The legal limits (of ethanol) vary by state, but are typically in the range of 0.8-1.0%. I could down a gallon of Stoli and still be below this limit. It should say 0.08-0.1%

Question 146. The math and the formula for osmolarity doesn't make sense, to me at least. Apparently, you got 384 mOsm/L by 140x2 + 10/2.5 + 180/1.8. You probably used 2.5 instead of 2.8 to make algebra easier, but why did you use 1.8 instead of 18? I checked units with Henry p. 149, and I didn't find an explanation... Still don't understand.

Question 209. 'Hyperthyroidism' in the question stem should be replaced with 'hypothyroidism'.

Stay tuned...

 

[112641]

If you find any errors I would really appreciate it if you either email them, PM, or better yet post in this forum so that others may benefit. I certainly would like to know where the errors are.

Thanks!

Question 209 in chemistry.. the question asks "hyperthyroidism" .. the answer and explanation is for hypothyroidism. (it also explains which answer IS hyperthyroidism though)

Question 206 in chemistry answer explanation "Normetanephrine is metabolized to normetanephrine"

 

[112641]

#179 in Chem.

Last word of answer explanation should be months not weeks

#184 in Chem.

Choices B and C are both correct.

 

[GeoLeoX]

#179 in Chem.

Last word of answer explanation should be months not weeks

#184 in Chem.

Choices B and C are both correct.

I agree with 179, 184 choice B is incorrect because in addition to classic symptoms the casual plasma glucose must be greater than 200 mg/dL, rather than the 150 mg/dL as stated in the question.

 

[GeoLeoX]

OK. Errors in Chapter 1... here we go:

Question 1, as explained above.

Question 29. There are two Cs in the answer choices.

Question 43. Choices A and D are identical; it's not really a mistake because both serous cystadenomas and solid-cystic tumors have identical amylase/CEA/CA19-9 pattern, but it's unusual to have two identical answer choices.

Question 78. 'hyperparthyroidism'.

Question 98 explanation: 'rhabomyolysis'.

Question 143. The explanation states: 'The legal limits (of ethanol) vary by state, but are typically in the range of 0.8-1.0%. I could down a gallon of Stoli and still be below this limit. It should say 0.08-0.1%

Question 146. The math and the formula for osmolarity doesn't make sense, to me at least. Apparently, you got 384 mOsm/L by 140x2 + 10/2.5 + 180/1.8. You probably used 2.5 instead of 2.8 to make algebra easier, but why did you use 1.8 instead of 18? I checked units with Henry p. 149, and I didn't find an explanation... Still don't understand.

Question 209. 'Hyperthyroidism' in the question stem should be replaced with 'hypothyroidism'.

Stay tuned...

First I have to apologize - I do not have a copy of the actual text, I gave all my copies to the residents in my program. I have to go back to my notes so the issues of typos will not be addressed (which unfortunately accounts for the majority of errors).

43. you are correct there are two of the same answer, but as you stated it doesn't matter.

146. The editor screwed that question up on me. The answer should be 294 mOsm/L for the reason that you stated - glucose should be divided 18.

209. should be hypothyroidism.

thanks again!

 

[GeoLeoX]

Question 209 in chemistry.. the question asks "hyperthyroidism" .. the answer and explanation is for hypothyroidism. (it also explains which answer IS hyperthyroidism though)

Question 206 in chemistry answer explanation "Normetanephrine is metabolized to normetanephrine"

209. as above.

206. norepinephrine is metabolized to normetanephrine

 

[112641]

I agree with 179, 184 choice B is incorrect because in addition to classic symptoms the casual plasma glucose must be greater than 200 mg/dL, rather than the 150 mg/dL as stated in the question.

I guess the electronic version is different... in the electronic version choice B has the value of 200.

Also question 83 electronic.. Choice B and the explanation. pH of 7.0.. that's definitely acidic.. and the most accurate acidic answer out of the choices, in the explanation you say the general range is 7.0 to 7.44. It should be 7.40 to 7.44 later in the explanation again 7.40 instead of 7.0.

All of the examples I'm posting are the electronic versions, as I find them.. if I'm using the book I'm not by a computer to list what I find...

 

[GeoLeoX]

I guess the electronic version is different... in the electronic version choice B has the value of 200.

Also question 83 electronic.. Choice B and the explanation. pH of 7.0.. that's definitely acidic.. and the most accurate acidic answer out of the choices, in the explanation you say the general range is 7.0 to 7.44. It should be 7.40 to 7.44 later in the explanation again 7.40 instead of 7.0.

All of the examples I'm posting are the electronic versions, as I find them.. if I'm using the book I'm not by a computer to list what I find...

I have no oversight of the online version. I have not seen it and was not asked to look it over before it was released.

Normal pH is around 7.4 - you are correct. acidemia should be anything below pH 7.4. In the non-physiologic setting pH 7 is in the middle of the scale with anything lower being acidic and above alkalotic. I miswrote that one - it's in my notes.

 

[112641]

I have no oversight of the online version. I have not seen it and was not asked to look it over before it was released.

Normal pH is around 7.4 - you are correct. acidemia should be anything below pH 7.4. In the non-physiologic setting pH 7 is in the middle of the scale with anything lower being acidic and above alkalotic. I miswrote that one - it's in my notes.

I'll keep listing them anyway if just for other people using the online version.. though it seems like they are consistent between both based on what you have responded except for that one case.

I'm a little concerned about sending you searching through your notes for an error that's not there but does appear online; I don't want to waste your time.

 

[GeoLeoX]

Errors are errors. I appreciate the feedback and these comments will go toward corrections to both the next printing of the text (if that happens) as well as the online version.

Thanks again,
Geo

 

[Nilf]

Chapter 3, question 71: question stem should have 'except'.

Chapter 2, question 67 explanation states: 'While both Factor V and Factor VII are labile in vitro, Factor VII is most labile in vivo.'
It should say: 'While both Factor V and Factor VIII are labile in vitro, Factor VII is most labile in vivo.'

 

[Gyric]

Great study tool. Wish I had kept track of the occasional errors (usually very obvious) as I went through it; one I do remember is Chapter 5, #43. As far as I know type 2N is best considered autosomal recessive, not dominant, as the answer indicates.

Miller CH, Am J Hematol. 1998 Aug;58(4):311-8

 

[GeoLeoX]

Great study tool. Wish I had kept track of the occasional errors (usually very obvious) as I went through it; one I do remember is Chapter 5, #43. As far as I know type 2N is best considered autosomal recessive, not dominant, as the answer indicates.

Miller CH, Am J Hematol. 1998 Aug;58(4):311-8

you are correct. type 2 can be wither dominant (like 2B) or recessive.

 

[deschutes]

Giovani brought this up earlier, but thought I'd point out that in the printed book, Q#184 in Chem, choices B and C are both correct.

B) classical symptoms of diabetes and casual plasma glucose greater than 200mg/dL
C) oral glucose tolerance test with 75g glucose load and two hour glucose greater than 200mg/dL

Very glad I bought the book. It's given me hope for CP (that no doubt will last just until I walk in the door of the exam room).

 

[mcfaddens]

It is an excellent book overall, however I do have one criticism. The people on the front cover seem too relaxed and one guy is actually smiling, these people cant be taking a CP test, and if they are I want some of what they are on before the exam

 

[GeoLeoX]

It is an excellent book overall, however I do have one criticism. The people on the front cover seem too relaxed and one guy is actually smiling, these people cant be taking a CP test, and if they are I want some of what they are on before the exam

you should see the people on the cover of the molecular companion...

 

[mcfaddens]

you should see the people on the cover of the molecular companion...

Oh I just checked it out! That dude is awesome! He's like 15 and a lefty! I think he's got lipstick on too, classic! I might just buy it for the cover alone

 

[deschutes]

Is that sunshine I see lighting up his bonny fair face?

 

[GeoLeoX]

Is that sunshine I see lighting up his bonny fair face?

and no less than the sunshine that comes from truly understanding the nuances of molecular pathology.

dream on, sweet dreamer...

 

[deschutes]

Chapter 6

Q.50 - explanation should read "All are associated with drug-induced lupus, which in turn is highly associated with anti-nuclear and anti-histone antibodies" (which is what my old copy of QCompendium says)

Arch Dermatol Res. 2009 Jan;301(1):99-105. Epub 2008 Sep 17
Drug-induced lupus erythematosus.
Vedove CD, Del Giglio M, Schena D, Girolomoni G.

Q.51 - last line of explanation should read "activate cellular immunity"

-
Chapter 3

Q.39 "common causes of neonatal bacterial meningitis except"
Answer given is (C) Neisseria, but option E is enterovirus
Are gram neg anaerobes (B) really a common cause?

Q.53 explanation should read "Coag-negative staph"

 

[Rodak]

Ch2, Q79 - B is also correct. You must irradiate granulocytes, and irradiating won't destroy your product.

 

[GeoLeoX]

Ch2, Q79 - B is also correct. You must irradiate granulocytes, and irradiating won't destroy your product.

You are correct. I was mistaken when I wrote this question and have been subsequently disabused of the notion. Many of the large centers now have universal irradiation policies for red cell, whole blood, platelet and granulocyte components. The only effective treatment of transfusion-associated graft v. host disease is prevention. Moreover, the transfusion of granulocytes is becoming increasingly rare with G-CSF therapy a "safer" alternative.

Thanks,
Geo

As a side note all the errors from the companion (as well as the Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology) are being compiled (many through efforts such as this forum) and are routinely updated on the "master" copy at ASCP Press so that future editions will hopefully lack the errors. In addition the online version is supposed to be updated whenever I submit corrections.

T

 

[deschutes]

Nothing like being stuck at an airport to make me type up all my Post-its.

Clinical Chemistry:
Q23) should be "in vivo half life" instead of in vitro.
Q43) answer choices A and D are the same, so technically 2 and 5 could have A or D for the right answer

Microbiology:
Q91) in the answer key, B should read "...and appearance of HBsAb"
Q181) Option E is "Exophiala" in the question stem but "A, B, C" in the answer key.
Q187) The capsule of Cryptococcus stains with both Alcian blue and mucicarmine. Fontana-Masson stains Cryptococcal cell wall, which as far as I can determine from my reading is what gives it added utility over the mucin stains - especially in the case of capsule-deficient Cryptococcus.
Q196) Non-fermenters should be clear/colourless so "B) white" should be the answer.
Q199 & 229) what is optimal growth temp for Pseudomonas? The answers to these two questions contradict each other.

Hemepath:
Q74) Option A should be "--/alpha alpha"
Q75) typo in option C: "low Hct"
Q98) explanation should read "...coated with antibodies then delivered to the RES..."
Q112) explanation should read "...neutropenia without affecting lymphocyte.."

Molecular:
Q25) typo: answer should be "C) 85%"
Q45) explanation says Birt-Hogg-Dube is not associated with renal tumours, when it is.
Q60) explanation should read "...t(11;22)(q24;q12)."
Q63) spelling of Beckwith-Wiedemann
Q65) both C and D are correct
Q72) explanation should read "normal individuals usually have LESS than 26 CAG repeats"
Q125) last line of explanation should read "...loss of paternal DNA..."

There!

 

[GeoLeoX]

Thanks again for the updates. I appreciate these posts and we can go through each of your corrections because it helps us all. Afterward I will post my entire collection of updates based on the input that I have received (mostly from SDN!).

Clinical Chemistry:
Q23) should be "in vivo half life" instead of in vitro.
Q43) answer choices A and D are the same, so technically 2 and 5 could have A or D for the right answer

You are correct on both. Factor VII is relatively stable compared to Factor VIII in vitro but labile in vivo. Similarly, see the explanation for Ch2. q67 - there's a similar (but different) typo there. The pancreas question I think we covered previously.

Microbiology:
Q91) in the answer key, B should read "...and appearance of HBsAb"

yep. a typo. you are correct.

Q181) Option E is "Exophiala" in the question stem but "A, B, C" in the answer key.

another typo. Option E should be "A, B, C", rather than Exophilia. Chromoblastomycosis is primarily due to Fonseca, Phialophora, and Cladosporium spp. Also, I spelled "dematiaceous" wrong.

Q187) The capsule of Cryptococcus stains with both Alcian blue and mucicarmine. Fontana-Masson stains Cryptococcal cell wall, which as far as I can determine from my reading is what gives it added utility over the mucin stains - especially in the case of capsule-deficient Cryptococcus.

The question was mis-typed, though the answer sorts it out. The question should read "Which of the following stains the cell wall of cryptococcus?". Alcian blue and mucicarmine stain the capsule and India ink is excluded from the capsule forming a negative stain.

Q196) Non-fermenters should be clear/colourless so "B) white" should be the answer.

you are correct. Fermenters are pink and non-fermenters white/colorless. There's no typo the question is just outright wrong. The answer should be:

B. white.

MacConkey agar is both selective for gram-negative organisms and differential for lactose fermenters v. non-lactose fermenters. The lactose non-fermenters appear as white colonies, and include organisms such as Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Burkholderia.

QCCP2, Culture media

Q199 & 229) what is optimal growth temp for Pseudomonas? The answers to these two questions contradict each other.

I think this one requires a little more explanation. Pseudomonas spp. can grow at a wide variety of temperatures from 15C to 45C. P. aeruginosa can be differentiated from other species of Pseudomonas because it grows at 42C, whereas P. fluorescens and P. putida don't. Most labs will start growing it at 37C. Interestingly, there is a pronounced effect of temperature on protein expression in Pseudomonas where the organism will express different proteins at different temperatures (many bacteria do this and it can account for increased pathogenicity of an organism when it grows at a certain temperature). So, question 199 is correct, but 229 is a poorly-worded question because I was trying to get at the fact that Pseudomonas will grow at 42C, but that is not necessarily the "optimal temperature" for growth.

Hemepath:
Q74) Option A should be "--/alpha alpha"

typo. You are correct. The correct answer is in the explanation.

Q75) typo in option C: "low Hct"

yep. It should be "low Hct", not "lot Hct".

Q98) explanation should read "...coated with antibodies then delivered to the RES..."

a weird typo. you are correct. Instead of it reading "rather than" in the answer it should be "then".

Q112) explanation should read "...neutropenia without affecting lymphocyte.."

you are correct. Also, at least in the electronic version, Kostmann is spelled with 3 Ns throughout the answer. I don't know how these weird typos come up.

Molecular:
Q25) typo: answer should be "C) 85%"

correct. The book says "B) 85%" in the answer, but not in the question. The answer should be "C) 85%"

Q45) explanation says Birt-Hogg-Dube is not associated with renal tumours, when it is.

That one's just poor grammar on my part. BHD is associated with renal tumors, of course. But BHD is not associated with the combination of renal tumors and pseudohermaphroditism like Denys-Drash is.

Q60) explanation should read "...t(11;22)(q24;q12)."

a typo. the answer now reads "t(11;22)(q24;a12)" and should read "t(11;22)(q24;q12)" as you stated.

Q63) spelling of Beckwith-Wiedemann

typo in the answer, but not in the question. it should be "ie" not "ei" in "Wiedemann".

Q65) both C and D are correct

you are correct. The answer explains correctly, but the question has two correct answers. I am going to change the question (and subsequent answer) from:

65. Synovial sarcoma is associated with the translocation t(X;18) resulting in a SYT-SSX fusion. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
B. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
C. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
D. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
E. none of the above are true

to:

65. Synovial sarcoma is associated with the translocation t(X;18) resulting in a SYT-SSX fusion. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
B. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
C. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
D. A & B
E. A, B, C
and the answer will be "D". same explanation.

Q72) explanation should read "normal individuals usually have LESS than 26 CAG repeats"

can you tell I was getting tired towards the end? The answer states "Normal (unaffected non-carrier) individuals usually have more than 26 CAG repeats", but should state "Normal (unaffected non-carrier) individuals usually have less than 26 CAG repeats"

Q125) last line of explanation should read "...loss of paternal DNA..."

again, a sleep deprivation typo. sorry. you are correct. Instead of it reading "loss of parental DNA leads to Prader-Willi" it should be "loss of paternal DNA leads to Prader-Willi"

Thanks again. I truly appreciate all the comments and corrections. I will post a subsequent post that catalogs all the errors, typos, etc. thus far found as soon as I get my notes together.

Geo